The Complainant is Red Diamond Holdings Sàrl of Senningerberg, Luxembourg, represented by Office Freylinger S.A.., Luxembourg.
The Respondent is Alexander K. Dobrenkov of Moscow, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2013. On June 10, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 11, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 18, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 8, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 9, 2013.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark LEE COOPER, registered for, inter alia, clothing since at least 1980. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on December 16, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the trademark LEE COOPER, registered in various jurisdictions such as the United States of America and the European Union. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark, created in 1908, when it registered the disputed domain name in 2011. The Respondent then directed the disputed domain name to resolve to a website selling the goods of the Complainant’s competitors. The Respondent has also offered to disputed domain name for sale for USD 5,000. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name, with the exception of the country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) “.me” is obviously identical to the trademark LEE COOPER, which the Complainant has registered well before the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant’s trademark is identical to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark when registering a domain name and that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name and is not involved in bona fide noncommercial activities with respect to the disputed domain name.
The Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case of the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. In the absence of any reply from the Respondent, the Panel considers that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As the Complainant contends, the Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. This is essentially confirmed by the Respondent’s documented offer to sell the disputed domain name for USD 5,000, which must be considered as being well above the out-of-pocket costs of registering the disputed domain name by the Respondent, and which shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith under the paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy . The Panel considers that the Respondent has registered and is using the contested domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 28, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy